demon hunters did not end with illidain

[Thimagryn]

No, its because it doesn't fit what a Rogue or a Monk is.

Why not? Is that guy in the picture doing anything to show he isn't a Rogue or Monk?

[BedlamBros]

Why not? Is that guy in the picture doing anything to show he isn't a Rogue or Monk?

Yeah, he's carrying six large swords.

[Larynx]

If you want some Asian style swordsman wearing very little clothing, you're playing the wrong game.

Did I miss something? Are monks no longer a class?

[Thimagryn]

Yeah, he's carrying six large swords.

which Fury Warriors can't do either :/

[BedlamBros]

Did I miss something? Are monks no longer a class?

Monks aren't swordsmen. Also chubby Panda people =/= Anime characters

- - - Updated - - -

which Fury Warriors can't do either :/

Which is why I said the closest you're going to get to that is going to be a Warrior.

[Larynx]

Monks aren't swordsmen. Also chubby Panda people =/= Anime characters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordsmanship

I guess monks are suddenly limited to only Pandaren, and are now unable to wield swords. Thanks for the new information.

Gee, WoD sure is removing a lot from the game.

[BedlamBros]

I guess monks are suddenly limited to only Pandaren, and are now unable to wield swords. Thanks for the new information.

You're welcome.

[Thimagryn]

Which is why I said the closest you're going to get to that is going to be a Warrior.

So you have your answer. It's not a Blind Fury Warrior, just your opinion what that character is closest looking to be.

You asked 'isn't that just a fury warrior with a blindfold?'. It's not, and now I've shown you why it's not. If there were a class that fit the character's description more closely (samurai, bladedancer) then it wouldn't be a Fury Warrior at all. Even now, it has more to do with Rogues and Monks simply by wearing a blindfold and what looks to be leather clothing.

[Ielenia]

http://www.wowhead.com/item=49665/pandaren-monk
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=51659
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=18497
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=11043
http://www.wowhead.com/npc=35305

So you just searched 'monk' on WoWHead and copy-pasted their webpage links here? Despite the name, do any of them resemble the player Monk class at all?

And what is this bringing to the game that isn't already there? Like I said, that's an armorless fury warrior with a blindfold.

And a warrior is just a paladin without Light magic. A warrior is just a DK without the undead theme. That argument of yours is just... weak.

What argumentation? I'm just pointing out that there's already a warrior class that is proficient with two 2h weapons. You're the one who is getting bent out of shape about it and bringing up other classes.

I'm just using your arguments on other WoW classes to show you how dumb such an argument is. A Paladin already tanks with shields and DPS with two-handed weapons. Therefore Protection and Arms Warriors are not needed. DKs DPS with dual-wielding, so Fury warriors are not needed. We have Priests and Warriors. Paladins are not needed. And etc, and etc...

Well mages and warlocks can't dual wield. Plus the image is considered a Warrior concept. So.....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing that guy in that picture dual-wielding anything...

Yeah, he's carrying six large swords.

Warriors cannot carry 'six large swords' either, so he can't be a warrior now, can he?

[Larynx]

You're welcome.

I'm really glad you've agreed with me. Now you should examine the rest of your post for similar inconsistencies and ignorance. Of course, if you're not willing to actually defend you position, you can just stick your fingers in your ears and cry about how wrong everyone else is.

[Ielenia]

Monks aren't swordsmen.

Yep. Totally not swordmen. Please do ignore the pictures below:

[BedlamBros]

So you have your answer. It's not a Blind Fury Warrior, just your opinion what that character is closest looking to be.

You asked 'isn't that just a fury warrior with a blindfold?'. It's not, and now I've shown you why it's not. If there were a class that fit the character's description more closely (samurai, bladedancer) then it wouldn't be a Fury Warrior at all. Even now, it has more to do with Rogues and Monks simply by wearing a blindfold and what looks to be leather clothing.

Samurai and Bladedancer falls under the Warrior umbrella as well.

The point is that your swordsman is already in WoW within the Warrior class. It doesn't look like that, but then again WoW isn't a Korean MMO with half naked androgynous character classes running around either. Samurai, Blind swordsmen, Blademasters, and anything else non-magic warrior related you can think of is already covered by the warrior class.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep. Totally not swordmen. Please do ignore the pictures below:

Please list the number of weapon-based attacks within the Monk class.

Thanks.

[Larynx]

Yep. Totally not swordmen. Please do ignore the pictures below:

IDK man, I don't really see much evidence of monk swordsmanship in an image of a monk using swords. /s

[Ielenia]

Please list the number of weapon-based attacks within the Monk class.
Thanks.

Monks are weapon-wielding fighters.

[Thimagryn]

The point is that your swordsman is already in WoW within the Warrior class.

Already wrong since what you said there is subjective. Rogues, Monks, Death Knights and Paladins are also swordsmen. Even Mages and Warlocks can use Swords. That picture doesn't show anything except a dude with 6 swords posing. Does he use magic? Is he good at stealing? Does he know martial arts? There's no information to show either way, any more than you could say 'he wears plate'.

Nothing about it says it's a Warrior. Again, it is a character who isn't relatable to WoW because there isn't anything defining him as a WoW class. You're only saying what you think he looks like, for your own reasons.

So it's all simply opinion. Do you not agree with this?

[BedlamBros]

Monks are weapon-wielding fighters.

Then please list the number of weapon-based attacks within the Monk class.

The please compare that number to the number of weapon-based attacks in the Warrior class.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing about it says it's a Warrior.

Except the description from the guy who drew the picture.

You are right though; It's not a Warcraft or Blizzard character, so why use it as potential new class material?

[Thimagryn]

You are right though; It's not a Warcraft or Blizzard character, so why use it as potential new class material?

I don't know, you're the one criticizing it for being something it's not.

Like I said, it's just a picture of a dude unrelated to WoW. There's no argument here about it being a Fury Warrior; but it tells a lot about the person who sees that in an unrelated image.

[Ielenia]

Then please list the number of weapon-based attacks within the Monk class.

They still use swords to attack.

You are right though; It's not a Warcraft or Blizzard character, so why use it as potential new class material?

Because it could still be used as inspiration for a new class. Monks did not exist in Warcraft 3 before.

[BedlamBros]

They still use swords to attack.

Since you're too afraid the answer, the correct response is 1. ONE weapon-based attack, and even that is optional, because its the Jab button.

Which in turn can be glyphed to make it so you punch instead of use your equipped weapon.

Kind of hard to be a swordsman when you have one weapon-based attack that in itself isn't really a weapon-based attack.

Because it could still be used as inspiration for a new class. Monks did not exist in Warcraft 3 before.

But Monks existed in WoW ever since Vanilla. Pandaren Monks existed in WoW since WotLK. That androgynous swordsman has never existed anywhere in WoW.

Blizzard likes broad class ideas. That six-sworded warrior doesn't provide that. Heck, Warriors have Bladestorm anyway.

[Ielenia]

ONE weapon-based attack, and even that is optional, because its the Jab button.

Your idea of 'optional' is weird, since that is a mandatory skill to do most of your other skills.

Kind of hard to be a swordsman when you have one weapon-based attack that in itself isn't really a weapon-based attack.

Doesn't change the fact that the monk is a sword-wielding fighter.

But Monks existed in WoW ever since Vanilla.

No. No, they did not. Unless you can provide proof to back your claim?

Pandaren Monks existed in WoW since WotLK.

No. No, they did not. Unless you can provide proof to back your claim?